Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 25-Mar-2019
Summary: The investigation of this complaint will be discontinued, as there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused to the complainant by traffic changes in the area.
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 22-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr Y complains about the loss of parking provision in an area he sometimes visits with his disabled son, Mr X. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into Mr Y's complaint because there is a lack of significant injustice arising from the fault he claims.
Statement Upheld Traffic management 20-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not tackled a noise nuisance problem created by vehicles travelling over speed bumps it installed on the road next to his home. He says he is not able to enjoy his garden or sleep properly because of the noise, adding many of his neighbours are also affected by the issue. He wants the Council to remove the bumps to rectify the problem. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for taking too long to complete a noise assessment relating to this issue and for the way it handled this complaint. However, we have found there was no fault in the process which led to its decision to retain the speed bumps. The faults which did occur caused Mr B and his wife frustration and inconvenience, therefore it has agreed to apologise to them for this. It has also agreed to review the Traffic Regulation Order governing weight restrictions on the road and write to the local Police and Crime Commissioner about these issues, to try and address the problem reported by Mr B.
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 20-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr B complains about how Transport for London (TfL) and its agents dealt with enforcement of the congestion charge. As a result, he incurred further charges and fees. There was no fault by TfL or its agents. It was able to take enforcement action when it could not collect the charges from Mr B's bank account.
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 19-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr C complains the Council disregarded the views of residents when deciding to introduce traffic calming measures and the speed cushions introduced cause him pain and discomfort. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 18-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's failure to enforce against obstructions to the dropped kerb which serves his driveway. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in the Council's actions, and does not uphold the complaint.
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 13-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's handling of parking issues in a street adjoining his own, which affected him particularly due to disability. The Ombudsman has discontinued investigation of this complaint as Mr C has died.
Statement Upheld Traffic management 08-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council's decision to exclude their address from a Controlled Parking Zone. The Ombudsman find some fault in the Council's consultation, but considers this would not have affected the outcome of the proposals. The Ombudsman also finds the Council provided wrong information to Mr and Mrs Y, which raised their expectations. However there is no evidence of fault in the implementation of the 2017 Traffic Order.
Statement Upheld Traffic management 04-Mar-2019
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council changed the parking restrictions on a street. This prevents the complainant, a landlord, from parking outside his properties on the street, but the Council was entitled to make this decision. There was some fault in the Council's response to his complaints, but this did not cause an injustice. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.
Statement Upheld Traffic management 19-Feb-2019
Summary: Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) were at fault for repeatedly issuing Penalty Charge Notices in error for vehicles that were compliant with the Low Emissions Zone. He also complained that TfL failed to respond to his complaint properly. We upheld Mr X's complaint. TfL cancelled the outstanding PCNs. We recommended action by TfL to resolve the problem that caused these errors. We also recommended a payment to Mr X to reflect the injustice caused by the multiple PCNs sent to him and the failings when responding to his complaint.